Skip to content

Tag Archives: Al Bahlul

On Monday’s Argument in Al-Bahlul

By
Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Just as performers sometimes single out one member of the audience to reach, advocates in an en banc rehearing at a federal appeals court don’t always expect to win over a majority.  The government showed a couple of years ago in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (finding that the Attorney General had qualified immunity in a lawsuit . . .
Read more »

Handicapping al Bahlul

By
Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Raff already outlined the issues the en banc D.C. Circuit (minus Judge Srinivasan) will confront in tomorrow’s oral argument in al Bahlul v. United States, and I have very little of substance to add to Jen Daskal’s thorough analysis over at Just Security, or Marty Lederman’s addendum thereto. Instead, I thought I’d take a slightly different tack, . . .
Read more »

Defense Counsel to DCCA: Still No Face Time with Al-Bahlul

By
Tuesday, August 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

The defense lawyer for Guantanamo detainee and military commission convict Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al-Bahlul has reported to the D.C. Circuit once more on his efforts to meet with his client. The D.C. Circuit ordered that counsel collect an affirmation by the detainee himself indicating that he would like to continue to appeal his conviction. . . .
Read more »

Al-Bahlul’s En Banc Reply Brief Available

By
Friday, August 9, 2013 at 7:14 AM

The reply was filed yesterday by counsel for Guantanamo detainee.  En banc briefing in the appeal of his military commission conviction is now seemingly complete. In the reply’s “Summary of Argument” section, Al-Bahlul emphasizes the straightforwardness of his case: All we ask is that this Court apply settled law to undisputed facts. None of the offenses in this . . .
Read more »

Final Word on the Bahlul Brief

By
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Steve’s latest insightful and well-argued comments on Former Government Officials and Military Lawyers’ amicus brief in al Bahlul highlight one important difference between us, but obscure that issue with other arguments that are more easily resolved.  I’ll address these preliminary points first, and then address the really significant difference. Despite what Steve contends (citing Kevin . . .
Read more »

My Last Word on the New Bahlul Amicus

By
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Thanks to his “sur-reply”, I finally understand the premise of Peter Margulies’s argument—and his amicus brief—in al Bahlul with regard to why the en banc D.C. Circuit can affirm Bahlul’s conspiracy conviction even though conspiracy is not a war crime under international law: Because Bahlul was actually tried for murder, even though no one in . . .
Read more »

Sur-Reply to Heller on al Bahlul

By
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Kevin’s most recent posts (here and here) continue to demonstrate his seriousness and salutary concern for defendants’ rights; the same is true for Steve.  However, Kevin and Steve’s posts don’t undermine Former Government Officials and Military Lawyers’ amicus brief asking the en banc D.C. Circuit to uphold the military commission conviction of former bin Laden . . .
Read more »

Three Questions for Peter Margulies on the New Bahlul Amicus Brief

By
Monday, July 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM

There’s a lot to say about Peter Margulies’ reply to my and Kevin Heller’s criticisms of the “former government officials’” amicus brief in al Bahlul–the military commission appeal currently pending before the en banc D.C. Circuit, where the central question is whether the commission lawfully had jurisdiction to try and convict Bahlul of “conspiracy.” To put . . .
Read more »

The Two Fundamental Flaws in the New Bahlul Amicus Brief

By
Friday, July 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Raff already flagged yesterday’s filing of an amicus brief in support of the government in the Al Bahlul military commission appeal before the en banc D.C. Circuit by “former government officials, former military lawyers, and scholars of national security law,” a group that includes Ben, Ken, and two of my casebook co-authors–among others. At the . . .
Read more »

Amicus Briefs in Al-Bahlul v. U.S.: Former Gov’t Officials, Military Lawyers & Scholars, And the Washington Legal Foundation

By
Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Two amicus briefs were delivered today in the en banc phase of GTMO detainee Ali Hamza Ahmad Suleiman Al-Bahlul’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit. The accused, as readers well know, was convicted by a military commission for, among other things, standalone conspiracy. The first brief, from former government officials, scholars and military lawyers (disclosure: Ben and . . .
Read more »

The Government’s Bahlul En Banc Brief

By
Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 7:32 AM

Get it here. My personal prediction: The only chance the government has of prevailing before the court is if the judges conclude that Ali Hamza Al Bahlul has not willingly filed an appeal. The government’s merits arguments are going nowhere. Here’s the government’s summary of its argument: 1. In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress . . .
Read more »

Petitoner’s En Banc Brief Filed in Al-Bahlul

By
Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Here it is.  Filed with the brief were two appendices, the first of which is here.  (The second exceeded our humble site’s maximum upload size.)  Background on Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al-Bahlul’s appeal can be found on the case’s Wiki page. The brief’s “Summary of Argument” section says: This case deals with the retroactive application of a . . .
Read more »

Wiki Case Page: Al Bahlul Resources

By
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Over the next few weeks, we will be starting our rollout of the Lawfare Wiki Document Library. The library will have many facets, and we will be introducing it piece by piece, sometimes page by page. The first page, a kind of template for what we hope to do with a lot of cases in . . .
Read more »

DCCA to Al-Bahlul: Do You Want to Keep Pursuing Your Case?

By
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 5:01 PM

The D.C. Circuit wants to know whether Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al-Bahlul desires to continue challenging his conviction by a military commission.  And the appeals court wants an answer from the accused himself, as it made clear in an order issued today.   (The D.C. Circuit granted the government’s petition for en banc review; the full . . .
Read more »

Developments in United States v. Al-Bahlul

By
Monday, May 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Two interesting and related developments in the Al-Bahlul appeal now pending before the D.C. Circuit: first, it seems that in mid-April, the accused had passed a note to a JTF-GTMO guard, in which Al-Bahlul (among other things) said he wished to “withdraw the case filed to appeal/challeng[e] the military commission’s ruling.” You can find the April missive—which JTF-GTMO . . .
Read more »

The D.C. Circuit “Clarifies” Scope of Bahlul En Banc Rehearing

By
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 8:04 PM

As Raff noted last week, the lawyers for the defendant-appellant in United States v. al-Bahlul–the military commission case in which the D.C. Circuit surprisingly granted rehearing en banc–had moved to “clarify” the scope of such rehearing, including whether it encompasses two constitutional challenges to Bahlul’s conviction (on First Amendment and equal protection grounds, respectively) that were . . .
Read more »

An Explainer on Hamdan II, Al-Bahlul, and the Jurisdiction of the Guantánamo Military Commissions

By
Friday, April 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM

As Wells noted on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in Al-Bahlul v. United States. This is a very important development, as the full appeals court will now determine whether military commissions may try defendants for pre-2006 instances of “standalone” conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Al-Bahlul has . . .
Read more »

Al-Bahlul’s Response to USG Petition for Rehearing En Banc

By
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Military commission accused Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulaiman al-Bahlul has submitted his response to the government’s petition for rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit.  In January, a 3-judge panel of that court vacated al-Bahlul’s conviction for conspiracy.  The Department of Justice sought en banc rehearing earlier this month. As Steve has explained, the government’s lawyers made three . . .
Read more »

No, General Martins Has Not “Gone Rogue”

By
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 8:56 AM

The New York Times has a news analysis piece by this morning the excellent Charlie Savage, which requires a moment’s reflection. Charlie is about as good a reporter as there is out there on Lawfare-related matters, and he has broken most of the stories related to the internal machinations within the executive branch over the future of . . .
Read more »

Military Commission Prosecutor’s Filings Regarding 9/11 Conspiracy Charges

By
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM

The Guantánamo military commissions yesterday released—after a security review—a pair of important filings by the Office of the Chief Prosecutor (OCP), regarding the ongoing controversy over the conspiracy charges against the five 9/11 defendants. (For background, see our prior coverage here, here, and here; and Chief Prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins’s podcast with Ben on the decision . . .
Read more »